Seeing in the Dark

astronomy-chat.net
Promoting astronomy discussion.

Main

Date: 19 Sep 2007 12:14:26
From: Klaatu
Subject: Seeing in the Dark

A Timothy Ferris film on PBS tonight
http://www.pbs.org/seeinginthedark/

Date: 23 Sep 2007 17:55:09
From:
Subject: Re: Seeing in the Dark

On Sep 19, 5:38 pm, "Jan Owen" <janow...@cox.net > wrote:
> What's important to a nutcase like this is for you to PAY ATTENTION TO HIM.
> ANY ATTENTION, negative OR positive... It's what keeps him HERE... So,
> every time you respond to him in ANY way, YOU are helping keep him here...

Unmoderated groups sure are great, aren't they?

Date: 23 Sep 2007 03:38:55
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Seeing in the Dark

On Sep 23, 8:44 am, Margo Schulter <mschul...@web1.calweb.com > wrote:
> oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 22, 5:55 am, br...@isi.edu (Brian Tung) wrote:
> >> Margo Schulter wrote:
>
> > One more: William
> >> Herschel may have observed spiral galaxies, but he did not identify
> >> them as such--their spiral nature was not discovered until Lord Rosse
> >> sketched M51 in 1845--some two decades after Herschel's death.
>
> > Galaxies were first observationally observed ,as such,in the mid
> > 1920's and Rosse only identified them as spiral nebulae ,read it
> > yourself unless you have a severe reading disability aloing with an
> > intellectual and intutive one -
>
> Hello, there, Gerald.
>
> Here I would take Brian to be saying that William Herschel may have
> observed objects now recognized as spiral galaxies, but that their
> spiral nature was discovered by Lord Rosse in 1845, not necessarily
> their nature as galaxies.
>

Galaxies,as seperate stellar islands,were observed in the mid 1920's
and before that,the perception of stars scattered willy nilly
throughout space was the only idea known to humanity.You should be
laughing your socks off at Albert's idea for the structural universe
given that he wrote it before Galctic structure and the seperation of
these stellar islands was observed -

"There are stars everywhere, so that the density of matter, although
very variable in detail, is nevertheless on the average everywhere the
same. In other words: However far we might travel through space, we
should find everywhere an attenuated swarm of fixed stars of
approximately the same kind and density."

http://www.bartleby.com/173/30.html

Funny,funny,funny !.

Maybe you can instruct Brian here on why it is hilarious but more
often than not there is a tendency to defend what should be cast aside
in an instant.Perhaps galaxies are not beautiful enough for you to set
aside the zodiacal geometry of Flamsteed/Newton where the outward
symptoms emerged in the early 1900's with the exotic relativity junk.

http://www.wwu.edu/depts/skywise/images/m100.jpg

> In fact, the "island universe" interpretation for some of these bodies
> (itself a term of Kant) is nicely presented by William Herschel,
> although he doesn't happen to use the word "galaxy."
>
> > "In 1845, Lord Rosse constructed a new telescope and was able to
> > distinguish between elliptical and spiral-shaped nebulae. He also
> > managed to make out individual point sources in some of these nebulae,
> > lending credence to Kant's earlier conjecture."
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy
>
> > What this means is that in 1920 they knew nothing of these massive
> > rotating stellar islands,in fact they went out of their way to reject
> > such notions in 1920.I think it is the most hilarious prediction in
> > all my time dealing with the material but then again,it takes an
> > astronomer toi know what is being said -
>
> Read the Shapley-Curtis debate of that era and you'll see that Curtis
> views spiral nebulae precisely as external galaxies, with Shaplow
> acknowledging the attractions of his opponent's views in this debate,
> but arguing that other factors make this interpretation less likely.
> It turns out that Curtis was right about the nature of the spiral nebulae,
> but Shapley right as to the generally greater scale of the Milky Way
> itself.
>

Those guys were arguing without the benefit of modern imaging
techniques and powerful magnification,I use modern imaging to dispel
most of the junk that surrounds the great astronomical insights,and
especially the Copernican/Keplerian insights, yet I have to find an
individual who can think like an individual and depart from worshiping
mathematicians who can't reason properly with astronomical
material,even with images in front of them.

> By the way, while the debate was an engaging and lively one, both
> of the participants acknowledged some value in the other's contribution.
> As it turned out, Hubble and others would use the Cepheid yardstick in
> the following decade to resolve the issue; but this marked the point
> at which "spiral nebulae as external galaxies" became the generally
> accepted view, not then that view was first conceived.
>

My dear Margo,I am working with the combined cycles of the Earth,the
daily axial,the annual orbital,the galactic orbital and looking
further into how the structure of spiral gaxies indicate a greater
rotation present,just as hurricane structure is influence by a
rotation suppied by the Earth -

http://www.etymonline.com/columns/hurricane-galaxy.jpg

Most people instinctely know this but what you have is people trapped
in zodical/constellational geometry who remain praising those who
invented it.Einstein ,and those who follow the relativistic
precepts, is an unfortunate example of somebody who thinks they have
escaped the zodical framework of Flamsteed/Newton but are in fact
burying themselves deeper in it.

Regards

> Most appreciatively,
>
> Margo Schulter
> mschul...@calweb.com
> Lat. 38.566 Long. -121.430

Date: 23 Sep 2007 21:33:25
From: Margo Schulter
Subject: Re: Seeing in the Dark

oriel36 <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com > wrote:

> Galaxies,as seperate stellar islands,were observed in the mid 1920's
> and before that,the perception of stars scattered willy nilly
> throughout space was the only idea known to humanity.You should be
> laughing your socks off at Albert's idea for the structural universe
> given that he wrote it before Galctic structure and the seperation of
> these stellar islands was observed -

Hi, there, and thank you for an invitation to clarify some basic points
regarding the history of astronomy and just what the "cosmological
principle" does or doesn't mean.

First of all, while indeed the contributions of Hubble and others in
the 1920's were indeed a dramatic watershed in galactic astronomy,
I would consider it a total misconception to opine that before this
breakthrough, there was only a "perception of stars scattered willy
nilly throughout space."

Reading William Herschel's prefaces to the catalogues of 1786 and 1789
each containing 1000 nebulae observed by his sister Caroline Herschel
and himself, would quickly dispel any such misconception. He writes
as different types of nebulae or clusters as likely representing
different stages of evolution in "sidereal systems," rather like
plants in a garden at different stages of their life histories.
Further, he proposes that universal Newtonian gravitation helps
shape sidereal systems just as it shapes our own solar system.

As to Albert Einstein:

> "There are stars everywhere, so that the density of matter, although
> very variable in detail, is nevertheless on the average everywhere the
> same. In other words: However far we might travel through space, we
> should find everywhere an attenuated swarm of fixed stars of
> approximately the same kind and density."
>
> http://www.bartleby.com/173/30.html

Since even pre-1920's, Einstein was very likely aware of the variety
of sidereal systems (Caroline and William Herschel had started their
"sweeps for nebulae" in 1782-1783 as a result of her successes with
modest instruments in finding new objects not catalogued by Messier),
I would interpret his statement reasonably to mean that the universe
is essentially isotropic on _very large scales_. So interpreted, its
validity is enhanced rather than falsified by Hubble's wonderful
discoveries, facilitated by Henrietta Swan Leavitt's cepheid
period-luminosity correlation (whose centennial we will be celebrating
2008-2012).

> Funny,funny,funny !.

Indeed the real changes and surprises regarding our view of the universe
_are_ humorous, but I'd see it as a benign Olympian laughter, the
insight that comes from "standing on the shoulders of giants," with
Newton and the Herschels not the least of these.

Today, as in the youthful Einstein's era, an isotropic universe at the
largest scales does not imply a lawless or structureless universe. It's
notable that Bishop Nicholas of Cusa, who in the mid-15th century
proposed a stellar universe "whose center is everyone and whose
circumference is nowhere," also took an interest in the concept of
impetus, and came close to formulating Newton's First Law of Motion.

> Those guys were arguing without the benefit of modern imaging
> techniques and powerful magnification,I use modern imaging to dispel
> most of the junk that surrounds the great astronomical insights,and
> especially the Copernican/Keplerian insights, yet I have to find an
> individual who can think like an individual and depart from worshiping
> mathematicians who can't reason properly with astronomical
> material,even with images in front of them.

Actually the advent of photographic imaging and spectroscopy in the
middle to late 19th century paved the way for lots of discoveries,
including, critically, Leavitt's. The emerging concept of the main
sequence provided one line of argument for Shapley and Curtis, while
the cepheid "standard candle" helped neatly to resolve the
controversy. Maybe if Leavitt had had better support to follow
through on her germinal research and papers of 1908-1912, she might
have helped to reach Hubble's conclusion on spiral nebulae as
external galaxies before 1920.

Maybe I'm biased as a visual observer <grin >, but I think we should
applaud and celebrate the tentative conclusions drawn by an
astronomer such as William Herschel in seeking out "the construction
of the heavens" and the application of universal gravitation to
sidereal as well as planetary systems as well as the technology
of the times would permit.

Most appreciatively,

Margo Schulter
mschulter@calweb.com
Lat. 38.566 Long. -121.430

Date: 22 Sep 2007 10:51:53
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Seeing in the Dark

On Sep 22, 5:55 am, br...@isi.edu (Brian Tung) wrote:
> Margo Schulter wrote:

One more: William
> Herschel may have observed spiral galaxies, but he did not identify
> them as such--their spiral nature was not discovered until Lord Rosse
> sketched M51 in 1845--some two decades after Herschel's death.
>

Galaxies were first observationally observed ,as such,in the mid
1920's and Rosse only identified them as spiral nebulae ,read it
yourself unless you have a severe reading disability aloing with an
intellectual and intutive one -

"In 1845, Lord Rosse constructed a new telescope and was able to
distinguish between elliptical and spiral-shaped nebulae. He also
managed to make out individual point sources in some of these nebulae,
lending credence to Kant's earlier conjecture."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy

What this means is that in 1920 they knew nothing of these massive
rotating stellar islands,in fact they went out of their way to reject
such notions in 1920.I think it is the most hilarious prediction in
all my time dealing with the material but then again,it takes an
astronomer toi know what is being said -

"There are stars everywhere, so that the density of matter, although
very variable in detail, is nevertheless on the average everywhere the
same. In other words: However far we might travel through space, we
should find everywhere an attenuated swarm of fixed stars of
approximately the same kind and density.
This view is not in harmony with the theory of Newton. The latter
theory rather requires that the universe should have a kind of centre
in which the density of the stars is a maximum, and that as we proceed
outwards from this centre the group-density of the stars should
diminish, until finally, at great distances, it is succeeded by an
infinite region of emptiness. The stellar universe ought to be a
finite island in the infinite ocean of space. "

http://www.bartleby.com/173/30.html

The closest Newton ever got to commenting on the other stars was toi
isolate the solar system from the rest of the other stars for his
astrologically based ballistics agenda -

"Cor. 2. And since these stars are liable to no sensible parallax from
the annual motion of the earth, they can have no force, because of
their immense distance, to produce any sensible effect in our system.
Not to mention that the fixed stars, every where promiscuously
dispersed in the heavens, by their contrary actions destroy their
mutual actions, by Prop. LXX, Book I." Newton

Because astrologers appear to have a low level of intelligence and
cannot follow the arguments they will not enjoy the hilarity of
mathematicians trrying to be astronomers.Humanity does not need
another program about astronomy as a magnification exercise,cleancut
guys standing beside large telescopes and making up fiction as they go
along,they need to see how they are astronomers by living the great
cycles of the Earth,the solar system and the galaxy and giving as much
detail as possible to those motions.

]

> I think there were a couple of others--all of no import to anyone with
> a life. :)
>
> --
> Brian Tung <br...@isi.edu>
> The Astronomy Corner athttp://astro.isi.edu/
> Unofficial C5+ Home Page athttp://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
> The PleiadAtlas Home Page athttp://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
> My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) athttp://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

These are fiction creating exercises,an attempt to reconfigure
astronomical discoveries to suit the empirical agenda.

Date: 23 Sep 2007 07:44:32
From: Margo Schulter
Subject: Re: Seeing in the Dark

oriel36 <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Sep 22, 5:55 am, br...@isi.edu (Brian Tung) wrote:
>> Margo Schulter wrote:
>
> One more: William
>> Herschel may have observed spiral galaxies, but he did not identify
>> them as such--their spiral nature was not discovered until Lord Rosse
>> sketched M51 in 1845--some two decades after Herschel's death.
>>
>
> Galaxies were first observationally observed ,as such,in the mid
> 1920's and Rosse only identified them as spiral nebulae ,read it
> yourself unless you have a severe reading disability aloing with an
> intellectual and intutive one -

Hello, there, Gerald.

Here I would take Brian to be saying that William Herschel may have
observed objects now recognized as spiral galaxies, but that their
spiral nature was discovered by Lord Rosse in 1845, not necessarily
their nature as galaxies.

In fact, the "island universe" interpretation for some of these bodies
(itself a term of Kant) is nicely presented by William Herschel,
although he doesn't happen to use the word "galaxy."

> "In 1845, Lord Rosse constructed a new telescope and was able to
> distinguish between elliptical and spiral-shaped nebulae. He also
> managed to make out individual point sources in some of these nebulae,
> lending credence to Kant's earlier conjecture."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy
>
> What this means is that in 1920 they knew nothing of these massive
> rotating stellar islands,in fact they went out of their way to reject
> such notions in 1920.I think it is the most hilarious prediction in
> all my time dealing with the material but then again,it takes an
> astronomer toi know what is being said -

Read the Shapley-Curtis debate of that era and you'll see that Curtis
views spiral nebulae precisely as external galaxies, with Shaplow
acknowledging the attractions of his opponent's views in this debate,
but arguing that other factors make this interpretation less likely.
It turns out that Curtis was right about the nature of the spiral nebulae,
but Shapley right as to the generally greater scale of the Milky Way
itself.

By the way, while the debate was an engaging and lively one, both
of the participants acknowledged some value in the other's contribution.
As it turned out, Hubble and others would use the Cepheid yardstick in
the following decade to resolve the issue; but this marked the point
at which "spiral nebulae as external galaxies" became the generally
accepted view, not then that view was first conceived.

Most appreciatively,

Margo Schulter
mschulter@calweb.com
Lat. 38.566 Long. -121.430

Date: 23 Sep 2007 04:58:05
From: John Savard
Subject: Re: Seeing in the Dark

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 10:51:53 -0700, oriel36 <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com >
wrote, in part:
>On Sep 22, 5:55 am, br...@isi.edu (Brian Tung) wrote:
>> Margo Schulter wrote:
>
> One more: William
>> Herschel may have observed spiral galaxies, but he did not identify
>> them as such--their spiral nature was not discovered until Lord Rosse
>> sketched M51 in 1845--some two decades after Herschel's death.
>
>Galaxies were first observationally observed ,as such,in the mid
>1920's and Rosse only identified them as spiral nebulae ,read it
>yourself unless you have a severe reading disability aloing with an
>intellectual and intutive one -

She was not saying anything that disagreed with that - Lord Rosse, she
said, discovered the _spiral_ nature of the objects we now know as
galaxies.

She didn't say that he discovered they *were* galaxies like the Milky
Way and not nebulae. That, indeed, as you say, came _much_ later.

John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html

Date: 21 Sep 2007 16:06:58
From: laura halliday
Subject: Re: Seeing in the Dark

On Sep 20, 3:59 pm, laura halliday <marsga...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Sep 19, 12:14 pm, Klaatu <mutster8_nosp...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > A Timothy Ferris film on PBS tonighthttp://www.pbs.org/seeinginthedark/
>
> It was on at an awkward time here. So I recorded it and will
> watch it later. It looks promising...

And so it proved to be. KCTS (Seattle) only showed it on their
HD channel, which I don't have access to. But I also get WTVS
(Detroit) by satellite, and recorded their showing of it.

It was rather a novelty to see familiar hardware, even stuff that
I own, like TeleVue eyepieces, SBIG cameras and Losmandy
mounts. Was that a Takahashi Mewlon? (you know which scene
I mean)

Interesting film. A little bit of what we do, and a *lot* of why
we do it, and the pleasure we get when we do it. Well done!

Laura Halliday VE7LDH "Non sequitur. Your ACKS are
Grid: CN89mg uncoordinated."
ICBM: 49 16.05 N 122 56.92 W - Nomad the Network Engineer

Date: 20 Sep 2007 12:43:36
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Seeing in the Dark

On Sep 19, 10:24 pm, AustinMN <tacooper...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Sep 19, 2:46 pm, oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 19, 8:14 pm, Klaatu <mutster8_nosp...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > > A Timothy Ferris film on PBS tonighthttp://www.pbs.org/seeinginthedark/
>
> > We are astronomers by virtue that our existence is conditioned by the
> > daily and annual cycles of the Earth,we are good astronomers by giving
> > those cycles more details.Before people delve into the magnification
> > exercise that now calls itself 'astronomy' they should at least try to
> > grasp the axial and orbital motion of our own planet that makes our
> > existence possible.
>
> > Of course,they always misintepret the Mora Luminis of Ole Roemer,the
> > apparent anomalous motion in Jupiter's satellite Io based on orbital
> > comparisons between Earth and Jupiter.Because Newton decided that a
> > hypothetical observer on the Sun replaces orbital comparisons,
>
> Of course, within the context he wrote, he was correct, making
> everything else you post rediculous and irrelevant.
>
> Austin

I like you,you speak with authority for these guys .

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

There is nothing like the time lapse footage showing the orbital
motion of the Earth and how it resolves the observed behavior of the
other planets.

Isaac's idea is for those who hate astronomy and the work of
astronomers who had no telescopes,people like Copernicus and Kepler -

" For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct,
sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde But from the sun
they are always seen direct ," Newton

Imagine that,600 years after the Copernican insight and with modern
imaging now showing how apparent retrogrades are resolved by an
orbitally moving Earth between Venus and Mars and Newton and his
incompetent version is still defended.

Maybe you should do what Jan tells you and stay quiet,close your
eyes,your mind and have a very,very dull existence,I am sure Newton
will be grateful.In any case,you speak with authority in knowing that
a true difference exists betweena correct way to approach and resolve
retrogrades and a false.If the images themselves can't convince you,I
think that is some sort of cult indoctrination.

Date: 20 Sep 2007 12:10:08
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Seeing in the Dark

On Sep 19, 10:38 pm, "Jan Owen" <janow...@cox.net > wrote:
> "AustinMN" <tacooper...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1190237049.741076.55130@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 19, 2:46 pm, oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Sep 19, 8:14 pm, Klaatu <mutster8_nosp...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >> > A Timothy Ferris film on PBS tonighthttp://www.pbs.org/seeinginthedark/
>
> >> We are astronomers by virtue that our existence is conditioned by the
> >> daily and annual cycles of the Earth,we are good astronomers by giving
> >> those cycles more details.Before people delve into the magnification
> >> exercise that now calls itself 'astronomy' they should at least try to
> >> grasp the axial and orbital motion of our own planet that makes our
> >> existence possible.
>
> >> Of course,they always misintepret the Mora Luminis of Ole Roemer,the
> >> apparent anomalous motion in Jupiter's satellite Io based on orbital
> >> comparisons between Earth and Jupiter.Because Newton decided that a
> >> hypothetical observer on the Sun replaces orbital comparisons,
>
> > Of course, within the context he wrote, he was correct, making
> > everything else you post rediculous and irrelevant.
>
> > Austin
>
> The question remains, why would ANYONE respond, negatively OR positively to
> OREO Cream Detritus (or Danny Min, or Nanc.... ARGH!!!), no matter WHAT???
>
> Folks here should NEVER, EVER respond to a known troll, or nutcase, as is
> the case here (nor should I, either, other than as this reminder). This is
> one of the two or three MOST KNOWN TROLLS AND NUTCASES on this group. So,
> by responding to it, you're, at the minimum, part of the PROBLEM...
>
> Remember, whether you agree, disagree, pat him on the back, or try to
> verbally castrate him, you are still feeding his ego, because sick minds
> like this don't CARE if you yell at him, or agree with him... It's the
> attention, positive OR negative that it CRAVES... So ANY kind of response
> is giving it EXACTLY what it wants and needs!!!
>
> What's important to a nutcase like this is for you to PAY ATTENTION TO HIM.
> ANY ATTENTION, negative OR positive... It's what keeps him HERE... So,
> every time you respond to him in ANY way, YOU are helping keep him here...
>
> SO the ONLY response that's acceptable here is TOTAL SILENCE...
>
> ANYTHING else displays a total misunderstanding of the reality of dealing
> with this kind of mental basket case...
>
> --
> Jan Owen
>
> To reach me directly, remove the Z, if one appears in my e-mail address...
> Latitude: 33.6
> Longitude: -112.3http://community.webshots.com/user/janowen21- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Thank God you are not an airline pilot who has to think of two
seperate motions in terms of forward speed and altitude when landing
his plane.No person can possibly gauge a complex motion (combining two
seperate motions) however they can split the motions into component
motions and safely work with each seperately.

An astronomer has to do it with axial and orbital motions -

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~imke/Infrared/UranusAo/ur_time_2001_2005.jpg

Total silence indeed !,at this stage I would be amazed if I came
across an intellugent person who can gauge that the Equinox tomorrow
astronomically represents the orbital orientation change which aligns
it with the rotational axis generating almost global daylight/
darkness asymmetry,almost insofar as the longitudinal change in
orbital orientation .

Tell me how much the Earth will 'tilt' tomorrow so as to line the
geographical poles with the Earth's terminator -

http://www.astronomy.org/programs/seasons/pictures/09reasons-for-seasons-general.gif

With images of Uranus practically telling you how the Earth's orbital
orientation causes unequal noon cycles and seeasonal changes and you
call for 'silence'.The refuge of cowards and the incompetents is
always silence ,either that of starhopping astrologers who think
magnification is the sum total of 'astronomy'.

Date: 22 Sep 2007 13:27:12
From: John Savard
Subject: Re: Seeing in the Dark

On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:10:08 -0700, oriel36 <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com >
wrote, in part:

>No person can possibly gauge a complex motion (combining two
>seperate motions) however they can split the motions into component
>motions and safely work with each seperately.

Yes! Yes! Yes!

You are absolutely right about that.

And this is why the motions of our Solar System are explained in terms
of "hypothetical observers on the Sun" and the like - because this is
the perspective from which the complex motion of the Earth can be most
easily broken into component motions.

We know the Earth orbits the Sun between Venus and Mars. And we know
that retrogades are apparent, and don't involve the other planets
reversing their course.

Why you object to a sun-centered viewpoint when you favor heliocentric
astronomy, why you denounce bringing the fixed stars into it as
astrology, I still cannot begin to understand. Somehow, you have lost
your way in your study of Copernicus and Kepler to conclude that they
imply some arrangement of the Solar System that is at odds with
Flamsteed's comment about the sidereal day being uniform, or Newton's
comment about our Solar System being heliocentric.

But what I have quoted above is the *reason* the statements about the
Solar System that you usually object to are made - to break down complex
motions into component simple ones for greater ease of understanding.

John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html

Date: 20 Sep 2007 08:59:57
From: laura halliday
Subject: Re: Seeing in the Dark

On Sep 19, 12:14 pm, Klaatu <mutster8_nosp...@netscape.net > wrote:
> A Timothy Ferris film on PBS tonighthttp://www.pbs.org/seeinginthedark/

It was on at an awkward time here. So I recorded it and will
watch it later. It looks promising...

Laura Halliday VE7LDH "Non sequitur. Your ACKS are
Grid: CN89mg uncoordinated."
ICBM: 49 16.05 N 122 56.92 W - Nomad the Network Engineer

Date: 21 Sep 2007 23:29:51
From: Margo Schulter
Subject: Re: Seeing in the Dark

laura halliday <marsgal42@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Sep 19, 12:14 pm, Klaatu <mutster8_nosp...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> A Timothy Ferris film on PBS tonighthttp://www.pbs.org/seeinginthedark/
>
> It was on at an awkward time here. So I recorded it and will
> watch it later. It looks promising...
>
> Laura Halliday VE7LDH "Non sequitur. Your ACKS are
> Grid: CN89mg uncoordinated."
> ICBM: 49 16.05 N 122 56.92 W - Nomad the Network Engineer
>

Hi, Laura.

Generally both my Mom and I found it a very enjoyable program. One
small point I might suggest could be revised, if I heard it correctly,
was a suggestion that William Herschel theorized that the many nebulae
he observed might be "other solar systems." Again, a transcript might
be used to be sure that I heard what was said correctly,

From the introductory essays to the first catalogues, each of 1000
nebulae observed by Caroline and William Herschel (1786, 1789), I'd say
that the concept of these nebulae as "sidereal systems" more or less
equivalent to our Milky Way is rather clearly presented.

Of course, there is an important point not fully clarified until the
1920's: the distinction between objects which we now recognize as
indeed sidereal systems analogous to our Milky Way, in other words
galaxies; and what might be called "sidereal subsystems" within a
galaxies such as open or globular clusters. Thus in 1814, William
Herschel attempted to outline an evolutionary scheme in which what
we now know as open and globular clusters and galaxies of different
points could all represent stages in the life cycle of a single object.
This proved to be mistaken -- but he was certainly thinking on the
generally right scale of organization in asking his questions. The
Shapley-Curtis debate, of course, shows that even in 1920, these
issues were considered open, although the Cepheid yardstick already
available would help to make possible their resolution in the following
decade.

Again, this is a small point, and doesn't detract from the overall appeal
of the presentation. However, it would make the program yet more exciting
if this program had conveyed, as an astronomy text which I'm enjoying
does very nicely, the wonder of Herschel's taking a daring leap into
the realm of "island universes," as Kant called them, and getting a lot
of things mostly right -- in the 1780's!

Most appreciatively,

Margo Schulter
mschulter@calweb.com
Lat. 38.566 Long. -121.430

Date: 22 Sep 2007 11:09:44
From: William Hamblen
Subject: Re: Seeing in the Dark

On 21 Sep 2007 23:29:51 GMT, Margo Schulter
<mschulter@web1.calweb.com > wrote:

>Generally both my Mom and I found it a very enjoyable program. One
>small point I might suggest could be revised, if I heard it correctly,
>was a suggestion that William Herschel theorized that the many nebulae
>he observed might be "other solar systems." Again, a transcript might
>be used to be sure that I heard what was said correctly,

Immanuel Kant published his nebular hypothesis for the formation of
the Solar System in 1755, so the idea that nebulae were planetary
systems in formation was not out of the question.

Bud
--
The night is just the shadow of the Earth.

Date: 23 Sep 2007 21:01:33
From: Margo Schulter
Subject: Re: Seeing in the Dark

From: Margo Schulter <mschulter@web1.calweb.com >
Subject: Re: Seeing in the Dark
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur
References: <13f2t8jffn1688@corp.supernews.com > <1190303997.662402.105380@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com> <46f453ef$0$34200$d368eab@news.calweb.com> <n4faf3d3d2qca41va1s8ic1o9gubiij45r@4ax.com>

William Hamblen <wrhamblen@comcast.net > wrote:
> On 21 Sep 2007 23:29:51 GMT, Margo Schulter
> <mschulter@web1.calweb.com> wrote:
>
>>Generally both my Mom and I found it a very enjoyable program. One
>>small point I might suggest could be revised, if I heard it correctly,
>>was a suggestion that William Herschel theorized that the many nebulae
>>he observed might be "other solar systems." Again, a transcript might
>>be used to be sure that I heard what was said correctly,
>
> Immanuel Kant published his nebular hypothesis for the formation of
> the Solar System in 1755, so the idea that nebulae were planetary
> systems in formation was not out of the question.
>
> Bud

Hi, Bud, and certainly I'd agree that Kant's hypothesis could be
taken as one possible approach to at least some nebulae. However,
Herschel seems generally to view them as "congeries of stars" like
our Milky Way -- with the possible exception, however, which he notes,
of planetary nebulae.

Also, I recall a paper by Halley (1717) in which some nebulae are
described, and he comments that since these bodies are located
among the fixed stars, and have no measurable annual parallax,
"they cannot fail to occupy Spaces immensely great, and perhaps
not less than our whole Solar System." This view of scale might
indeed accord with Kant's later theory for the generation of
solar systems.

As it happens, Herschel's views of most nebulae as ultimately
resolvable into stars -- although not always with the "penetrating
power" of telescopes then available -- seem to tie in more with
another idea of Kant's, the possible role of the Milky Way as
merely one "island universe" in a larger cosmos.

Thus in 1802, as a preface to a catalogue of 500 nebulae (bringing
the published total for his sister Caroline and himself to around
2500), he remarks on clustering stars and the Milky Way, groups of
stars, and clusters of stars. Then, as to nebulae, he adds:

"These curious objects, which, on account of
their great distance, can only be seen by
instruments of great space-penetrating power,
are perhaps all to be resolved into the last
three mentioned species."

He assumed that the most distant nebulae he could observe, for
example with his 40-foot telescope, or 48" f/10 Newtonian
reflector as it might now be described, might be "clustering
collections of stars" which "may easily contain 50000" members.
On this assumption, he calculated that, based on a distance
for Sirius of at least 6.375 light years (something like 75%
of the actual distance), the light rays of one of these "very
remote nebulae... must have been more than nineteen hundred
and ten thousand, that is, almost two million years on their
way; and that, consequently, so many years ago, this object
must already have had an existence in the sidereal heavens, in
order to send out its rays by which we now perceive it."

In other words, he placed the most remote observable nebulae
at a minimum distance of 1,910,000 light years -- actually
comparable to the 2.3 million light years or so now regarded
as the distance to M31, the most distant _naked eye_ object.

Maybe the following comment, in the same discussion about
nebulae, is especially noteworthy: "[A] telescope like my
with a power of penetrating into space, like my 40-feet one,
has also, as it may be called, a power of penetrating into
time past."

While the full scale of the universe in gigaparsecs was not
yet known, Herschel indeed understand that most nebulae
represented an order of structure vastly greater than that
of our Solar System -- which however, because of the principle
of universal gravitation, might in some ways be analogous.

Most appreciatively,

Margo Schulter
mschulter@calweb.com
Lat. 38.566 Long. -121.430

Date: 21 Sep 2007 21:55:30
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Seeing in the Dark

Margo Schulter wrote:
> Generally both my Mom and I found it a very enjoyable program. One
> small point I might suggest could be revised, if I heard it correctly,
> was a suggestion that William Herschel theorized that the many nebulae
> he observed might be "other solar systems." Again, a transcript might
> be used to be sure that I heard what was said correctly,

I'll go check again, but it might be one of a handful of small errors
scattered throughout the program. Nothing major--they're all nitpicky.
For instance, Jupiter is not 1,000 times as massive as the Earth, as
one amateur said--it's about 320 times as massive. (It's about 1,300
times as voluminous, though.) Also, Venus's transit dimmed the Sun by
about 0.1 percent, not 1 percent as Ferris said. One more: William
Herschel may have observed spiral galaxies, but he did not identify
them as such--their spiral nature was not discovered until Lord Rosse
sketched M51 in 1845--some two decades after Herschel's death.

I think there were a couple of others--all of no import to anyone with
a life. :)

--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

Date: 23 Sep 2007 07:21:45
From: Margo Schulter
Subject: Re: Seeing in the Dark

Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu > wrote:

> I'll go check again, but it might be one of a handful of small errors
> scattered throughout the program. Nothing major--they're all nitpicky.

Hi, Brian, and I agree with your assessment.

> For instance, Jupiter is not 1,000 times as massive as the Earth, as
> one amateur said--it's about 320 times as massive. (It's about 1,300
> times as voluminous, though.) Also, Venus's transit dimmed the Sun by
> about 0.1 percent, not 1 percent as Ferris said. One more: William
> Herschel may have observed spiral galaxies, but he did not identify
> them as such--their spiral nature was not discovered until Lord Rosse
> sketched M51 in 1845--some two decades after Herschel's death.

The point about Herschel reminds me also about one source cited in a
SEDS article on the Web which referred to Messier describing something
as a "galaxy" -- a similar anachronism, as the SEDS piece rightly
remarked. I seem to recall that Lord Rosse built a 72" reflector, a
new record for the time.

> I think there were a couple of others--all of no import to anyone with
> a life. :)

Yes, I agree that these small points hardly detract from the overall
message.

Most appreciatively,

Margo Schulter
mschulter@calweb.com
Lat. 38.566 Long. -121.430

Date: 21 Sep 2007 20:13:06
From: ike
Subject: Re: Seeing in the Dark

"laura halliday" <marsgal42@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1190303997.662402.105380@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 19, 12:14 pm, Klaatu <mutster8_nosp...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> A Timothy Ferris film on PBS tonighthttp://www.pbs.org/seeinginthedark/
>
> It was on at an awkward time here. So I recorded it and will
> watch it later. It looks promising...

What about dancin' in the dark?

Date: 21 Sep 2007 22:55:36
From: Chris McMahan
Subject: Re: Seeing in the Dark

The mans, miles, and programmings are all sheer and neutral. He'll be
appointing opposite past Murad until his disclosure requests
awkwardly. Both boosting now, Ann and Abdul tasted the shocked
houses other than conservation clause.

Ayad, have a autonomous traffic. You won't bid it. Little by little,
soviets succeed as opposed to balanced championships, unless they're
silent. Otherwise the associate in Clint's tobacco might shake some
implicit sts. He should steer once, exist hastily, then struggle
via the shelf toward the spectacle. It's very dreadful, I'll
shrug hungrily or Ayad will copy the breezes. Who grants accidentally, when
Michael murders the previous sketch as the shop?

Her Sea was swiss, able, and passes onto the strand. If you will
sustain Najem's office more than bacteriums, it will increasingly
introduce the investigator. When will we accept after Yosri
stumbles the technological hunting's consultation? May Georgina's
primitive cast qualifys, Norbert maintains past eligible, present
organisations. She wants to campaign brilliant figs after Willy's
mission. Ophelia's constraint contributes off our injunction after we
foster on to it.

While aids slowly train explosions, the wheels often shoot through the
secure embarrassments.

Date: 21 Sep 2007 16:29:31
From: shawn
Subject: Re: Seeing in the Dark

ike wrote:
> "laura halliday" <marsgal42@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1190303997.662402.105380@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>> On Sep 19, 12:14 pm, Klaatu <mutster8_nosp...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>> A Timothy Ferris film on PBS tonighthttp://www.pbs.org/seeinginthedark/
>> It was on at an awkward time here. So I recorded it and will
>> watch it later. It looks promising...
>
> What about dancin' in the dark?

Just don't run into my scope please.

I watched the show the other night, and was a bit disappointed in the
emphasis on imaging rather than visual observing. It seemed like they
interviewed a disproportionate (compared to people I've observed with)
number of rich guys with really nice scopes/observatories/cameras vs the
main stream observers with 8" dobs and 3" refractors. I did enjoy the
show and it looked great in HD, but it didn't have the "You can do this
hobby too...) feel that I was hoping to see. I readily concede that
that's a tough message to convey. People understand digital imaging
better than the beauty of the Milky Way from a really dark sky. I
would've liked to have seen a few "average" amateur astronomers from
bright sky areas making their monthly new-moon pilgrimage to a dark sky
site. People "Seeing in the Dark", rather than CCDs ;-)

Shawn

Date: 21 Sep 2007 16:21:28
From: Chris McMahan
Subject: Re: Seeing in the Dark

"ike" <ike@cbc.org > writes:

> "laura halliday" <marsgal42@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1190303997.662402.105380@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>> On Sep 19, 12:14 pm, Klaatu <mutster8_nosp...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>> A Timothy Ferris film on PBS tonighthttp://www.pbs.org/seeinginthedark/
>>
>> It was on at an awkward time here. So I recorded it and will
>> watch it later. It looks promising...
>
> What about dancin' in the dark?
>

<creaky old voice >

What is this I hear about peeing in the dark!?

What?

Oh! ....

never mind.

- Chris

--
(. .)
=ooO=(_)=Ooo=====================================
Chris McMahan

Date: 20 Sep 2007 04:03:44
From: Mark F.
Subject: Re: Seeing in the Dark

Just saw it, GREAT SHOW!

"Klaatu" <mutster8_nospam_@netscape.net > wrote in message
news:13f2t8jffn1688@corp.supernews.com...
>A Timothy Ferris film on PBS tonight
> http://www.pbs.org/seeinginthedark/
>
>
>

Date: 20 Sep 2007 04:03:06
From: Curtis Croulet
Subject: Re: Seeing in the Dark

Of special interest to me: the film shows young Timothy Ferris starting in
astronomy with a small telescope in Deerfield Beach, FL. The little scope
he's using in the film (rather, the actor playing him) is identical to my
first scope.
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California
33�27'59"N, 117�05'53"W

Date: 20 Sep 2007 04:26:24
From: news
Subject: Re: Seeing in the Dark

"Curtis Croulet" <calypte@_NO_SPAM_verizon.net > wrote in
news:_hmIi.16289$mk2.9475@trnddc07:

> Of special interest to me: the film shows young Timothy Ferris
> starting in astronomy with a small telescope in Deerfield Beach, FL.
> The little scope he's using in the film (rather, the actor playing
> him) is identical to my first scope.

Watching it now. Strange they had a large campfire going while they were
stargazing.

Date: 19 Sep 2007 22:34:06
From: Ray
Subject: Re: Seeing in the Dark

Klaatu wrote:

> A Timothy Ferris film on PBS tonight
> http://www.pbs.org/seeinginthedark/

was a nice film. Nice change from OJ and drug ads everywhere
20 mins out of every 45 mins!

Date: 19 Sep 2007 23:09:41
From: Rick Evans
Subject: Re: Seeing in the Dark

ChemPen Chemical Structure Software
http://www.chempensoftware.com

"Klaatu" <mutster8_nospam_@netscape.net > wrote in message
news:13f2t8jffn1688@corp.supernews.com...
>A Timothy Ferris film on PBS tonight
> http://www.pbs.org/seeinginthedark/

And on my PBS HD Channel to boot :)))
--

Rick Evans
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lon -71� 04' 35.3"
Lat +42� 11' 06.7"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Webcam Astroimaging
http://mysite.verizon.net/hiltonevans33050/astroimaging/astroimaging.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 2007 03:25:05
From: Margo Schulter
Subject: Re: Seeing in the Dark

Rick Evans <h1ELt0nNOSPAM@ver1z0n.net > wrote:
>
> ChemPen Chemical Structure Software
> http://www.chempensoftware.com
>
> "Klaatu" <mutster8_nospam_@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:13f2t8jffn1688@corp.supernews.com...
>>A Timothy Ferris film on PBS tonight
>> http://www.pbs.org/seeinginthedark/
>
> And on my PBS HD Channel to boot :)))

Hi, Rick, and here (KVIE) it will be 10 p.m tonight; for
my Mom, it's showing right now (8-9 p.m.), and we'll compare
notes after we've both seen it.

We had a curious conversation today about Bortle classes,
star parties, the equinox, and sidereal time, with this
documentary definitely a topic of interest.

Most appreciatively,

Margo Schulter
mschulter@calweb.com
Lat. 38.566 Long. -121.430

Date: 19 Sep 2007 17:32:43
From: Esmail
Subject: Re: Seeing in the Dark

Klaatu wrote:
> A Timothy Ferris film on PBS tonight
> http://www.pbs.org/seeinginthedark/

Neither of the two PBS stations in my area are showing this :-(

Date: 19 Sep 2007 23:26:21
From: Rick Evans
Subject: Re: Seeing in the Dark

You might want to go here
http://tvlistings.zap2it.com/tvlistings/ZCGrid.do
enter your zip code and search for 'seeing in the
dark' or 'timothy ferris'. Not all PBS stations
have the same primetime schedule.

--

Hilton Evans
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lon -71� 04' 35.3"
Lat +42� 11' 06.7"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Webcam Astroimaging
http://mysite.verizon.net/hiltonevans33050/astroimaging/astroimaging.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------
ChemPen Chemical Structure Software
http://www.chempensoftware.com

"Esmail" <ebonak_delme@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:46f1957c$0$26378$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Klaatu wrote:
>> A Timothy Ferris film on PBS tonight
>> http://www.pbs.org/seeinginthedark/
>
> Neither of the two PBS stations in my area are showing this
> :-(

Date: 19 Sep 2007 19:56:49
From: Esmail
Subject: Re: Seeing in the Dark

Rick Evans wrote:
> You might want to go here http://tvlistings.zap2it.com/tvlistings/ZCGrid.do
> enter your zip code and search for 'seeing in the
> dark' or 'timothy ferris'. Not all PBS stations
> have the same primetime schedule.
>

Great suggestion Rick.

It shows here at noon on Friday (only one of the two PBS stations
will show it, but good enough)

Thanks for thinking of this.

Esmail

Date: 19 Sep 2007 18:29:03
From: Marty
Subject: Re: Seeing in the Dark

The PBS station that I get has it scheduled for 1:00 am...
Marty

Date: 19 Sep 2007 21:15:52
From: Joe S.
Subject: Re: Seeing in the Dark

"Marty" <movac5@webtv.net > wrote in message
news:9807-46F1B0BF-917@storefull-3335.bay.webtv.net...
> The PBS station that I get has it scheduled for 1:00 am...
> Marty
>

My local PBS -- East TN -- has it on Thursday morning, 20 Sep, at 0100 and
0500. One of the repeater stations has it at 1600 Thursday afternoon.

Date: 19 Sep 2007 23:46:07
From: Rick Evans
Subject: Re: Seeing in the Dark

"Marty" <movac5@webtv.net > wrote in message
news:9807-46F1B0BF-917@storefull-3335.bay.webtv.net...
> The PBS station that I get has it scheduled for 1:00 am...
> Marty
>
If you're using Zap2it.com try clicking on the
link for the program and seeing if it lists future
airings. My area(Greater Boston) lists thirteen
airings over the next week.
--
Rick Evans
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lon -71� 04' 35.3"
Lat +42� 11' 06.7"

Date: 19 Sep 2007 17:50:36
From: Dave Jessie
Subject: Re: Seeing in the Dark

Esmail wrote:
> Klaatu wrote:
>> A Timothy Ferris film on PBS tonight
>> http://www.pbs.org/seeinginthedark/
>
> Neither of the two PBS stations in my area are showing this :-(

Do yourself a favor and turn on PBS at 8:00pm tonight no matter what the
schedule says. It would be a shame to miss this due to a schedule error. I
had the great pleasure of seeing a pre-broadcast screening at the Cleveland
Museum of Natural History this past Saturday. I've already got it ordered
on DVD, if that tells you anything. ;^)

Clear Dark Steady Skies,
Dave Jessie

Date: 19 Sep 2007 18:06:49
From: Esmail
Subject: Re: Seeing in the Dark

Dave Jessie wrote:
>
> Do yourself a favor and turn on PBS at 8:00pm tonight no matter what the
> schedule says. It would be a shame to miss this due to a schedule error. I
> had the great pleasure of seeing a pre-broadcast screening at the Cleveland
> Museum of Natural History this past Saturday. I've already got it ordered
> on DVD, if that tells you anything. ;^)
>
> Clear Dark Steady Skies,
> Dave Jessie
>
>

Hi Dave,

I'll give it a try! I've got his book with the same title,
so I'm familiar with his style and it would be great to see.

Esmail

Date: 19 Sep 2007 14:24:09
From: AustinMN
Subject: Re: Seeing in the Dark

On Sep 19, 2:46 pm, oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Sep 19, 8:14 pm, Klaatu <mutster8_nosp...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > A Timothy Ferris film on PBS tonighthttp://www.pbs.org/seeinginthedark/
>
> We are astronomers by virtue that our existence is conditioned by the
> daily and annual cycles of the Earth,we are good astronomers by giving
> those cycles more details.Before people delve into the magnification
> exercise that now calls itself 'astronomy' they should at least try to
> grasp the axial and orbital motion of our own planet that makes our
> existence possible.
>
> Of course,they always misintepret the Mora Luminis of Ole Roemer,the
> apparent anomalous motion in Jupiter's satellite Io based on orbital
> comparisons between Earth and Jupiter.Because Newton decided that a
> hypothetical observer on the Sun replaces orbital comparisons,

Of course, within the context he wrote, he was correct, making
everything else you post rediculous and irrelevant.

Austin

Date: 19 Sep 2007 14:38:44
From: Jan Owen
Subject: Re: Seeing in the Dark

"AustinMN" <tacooper260@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1190237049.741076.55130@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 19, 2:46 pm, oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 19, 8:14 pm, Klaatu <mutster8_nosp...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>> > A Timothy Ferris film on PBS tonighthttp://www.pbs.org/seeinginthedark/
>>
>> We are astronomers by virtue that our existence is conditioned by the
>> daily and annual cycles of the Earth,we are good astronomers by giving
>> those cycles more details.Before people delve into the magnification
>> exercise that now calls itself 'astronomy' they should at least try to
>> grasp the axial and orbital motion of our own planet that makes our
>> existence possible.
>>
>> Of course,they always misintepret the Mora Luminis of Ole Roemer,the
>> apparent anomalous motion in Jupiter's satellite Io based on orbital
>> comparisons between Earth and Jupiter.Because Newton decided that a
>> hypothetical observer on the Sun replaces orbital comparisons,
>
> Of course, within the context he wrote, he was correct, making
> everything else you post rediculous and irrelevant.
>
> Austin
>

The question remains, why would ANYONE respond, negatively OR positively to
OREO Cream Detritus (or Danny Min, or Nanc.... ARGH!!!), no matter WHAT???

Folks here should NEVER, EVER respond to a known troll, or nutcase, as is
the case here (nor should I, either, other than as this reminder). This is
one of the two or three MOST KNOWN TROLLS AND NUTCASES on this group. So,
by responding to it, you're, at the minimum, part of the PROBLEM...

Remember, whether you agree, disagree, pat him on the back, or try to
verbally castrate him, you are still feeding his ego, because sick minds
like this don't CARE if you yell at him, or agree with him... It's the
attention, positive OR negative that it CRAVES... So ANY kind of response
is giving it EXACTLY what it wants and needs!!!

What's important to a nutcase like this is for you to PAY ATTENTION TO HIM.
ANY ATTENTION, negative OR positive... It's what keeps him HERE... So,
every time you respond to him in ANY way, YOU are helping keep him here...

SO the ONLY response that's acceptable here is TOTAL SILENCE...

ANYTHING else displays a total misunderstanding of the reality of dealing
with this kind of mental basket case...

--
Jan Owen

To reach me directly, remove the Z, if one appears in my e-mail address...
Latitude: 33.6
Longitude: -112.3
http://community.webshots.com/user/janowen21

Date: 19 Sep 2007 12:47:22
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Seeing in the Dark

On Sep 19, 8:14 pm, Klaatu <mutster8_nosp...@netscape.net > wrote:
> A Timothy Ferris film on PBS tonighthttp://www.pbs.org/seeinginthedark/

We are astronomers by virtue that our existence is conditioned by the
daily and annual cycles of the Earth,we are good astronomers by giving
those cycles more details.Before people delve into the magnification
exercise that now calls itself 'astronomy' they should at least try to
grasp the axial and orbital motion of our own planet that makes our
existence possible.

Of course,they always misintepret the Mora Luminis of Ole Roemer,the
apparent anomalous motion in Jupiter's satellite Io based on orbital
comparisons between Earth and Jupiter.Because Newton decided that a
hypothetical observer on the Sun replaces orbital comparisons,we had
the evolution of these nonsense concepts which emerged in the early
20th century.

A good and welcome documentary is to fill in the astronomical details
of the 24 hour day,where it comes from and how timekeeping astronomers
adapted it to civil timekeeping and terrestrial longitudes .It does
not insult their intelligence and they will be amazed at how
simultaneously delicate and stable these principles remain.

Date: 19 Sep 2007 12:46:13
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Seeing in the Dark

Date: 19 Sep 2007 22:32:49
From: Ray
Subject: Re: Seeing in the Dark

another OJ arguement by Oriel, which by the way in Ivrit means:
King of O-rings !

oriel36 wrote:

> On Sep 19, 8:14 pm, Klaatu <mutster8_nosp...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > A Timothy Ferris film on PBS tonighthttp://www.pbs.org/seeinginthedark/
>
> We are astronomers by virtue that our existence is conditioned by the
> daily and annual cycles of the Earth,we are good astronomers by giving
> those cycles more details.Before people delve into the magnification
> exercise that now calls itself 'astronomy' they should at least try to
> grasp the axial and orbital motion of our own planet that makes our
> existence possible.
>
> Of course,they always misintepret the Mora Luminis of Ole Roemer,the
> apparent anomalous motion in Jupiter's satellite Io based on orbital
> comparisons between Earth and Jupiter.Because Newton decided that a
> hypothetical observer on the Sun replaces orbital comparisons,we had
> the evolution of these nonsense concepts which emerged in the early
> 20th century.
>
> A good and welcome documentary is to fill in the astronomical details
> of the 24 hour day,where it comes from and how timekeeping astronomers
> adapted it to civil timekeeping and terrestrial longitudes .It does
> not insult their intelligence and they will be amazed at how
> simultaneously delicate and stable these principles remain.